The roots of quasi-spirituality and the misery it causes, based on people like this!
in Spirituality ·
bluemason3 said:yeahWhy bother picking on someone if they aren't actually bothering you? :(
Because that’s the whole point of this place—it's the very essence of our virtual existence here. 😬
A dead forum is a boring forum. 😁People say similar things about Muhammad regarding his personal life (not that I want to offend any Muslims), but so what if it's true? Modern Islam isn't diminished by how its prophet handled his relationships with women.
The founder's character might shape a cult initially, but maybe a movement outgrows its creator and evolves into something better. Why wouldn't it?
Or maybe it doesn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If it were discovered that Jesus was gay, would that change Christianity as a faith? 🤷
Actually, the issue is that belonging to such a group—submitting to ideological conformity—creates a tool for potential manipulation.
Let's not get carried away thinking about grand conspiracies or wild excesses. Humans are naturally, evolutionarily social creatures—we have some of the most complex social structures out there (maybe besides certain insects, though they mostly just rely on sheer numbers rather than complexity).
To make this work, you need a massive dose of conformity. You can't function in a community unless you share its core values, behaviors, and respect for authority. These aren't things religions invent; they simply inhabit existing human mechanisms.
But that same structure opens the door to manipulation. Would you go fight in some remote conflict halfway across the world between two tribes you've never met? Maybe you'd (and that's a big maybe 😁) step up if someone threatened your own home in the States, even if it wasn't your specific neighborhood. Why? There's no biological link there, so what connects you? It's that subjective identification with the group. Once you identify with the collective, you become a cog in a machine that can be steered. And honestly, there's a reason for that—if we had survived as individuals, we wouldn't have formed communities. For survival, we needed to merge into "Borgs." Personally, I refuse to be part of any Borg unless it's via a rational decision—a conscious agreement to join an organized society.
Is it possible, or even good, to try and overcome these social and psychological "Borg" mechanisms? I don't know. But that's what defines social phenomena like religion, regardless of what they are, who founded them, or how they looked yesterday versus today. Nothing guarantees what they will look like tomorrow.Look, for me, there’s no debate. If some guy showed up in my hometown tomorrow who could heal the sick with a touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, turn the water in Chicago into wine 😬 , or feed every homeless person in town with a single serving of fish from Mimca, I wouldn't hesitate. I’d believe him more than I’d believe some local dealer offering a mushroom extract to fix my headspace. 😉😛
I wouldn't. There have been people like that before—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who turned out to be frauds. First off, it wouldn't be easy to convince me it wasn't just a trick, and then it would be even harder to convince me it was proof of his bozanskost. Even if it were, I wouldn't care much about that either. 😬But by this logic, it doesn't apply to the Orthodox faith, since that is Christian and has nothing to do with this. 🙂
I'm not sure what you mean by that. 🤔
The Popes are probably more interesting here because of the heavy Catholic background and the dominant Catholic religious culture. If we were in Mexico, people would likely be talking more about their various leaders instead.
However, following the logic above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the greatest potential to export nonsense. Not that the influence of any leader, even the strongest Patriarch and his independent church, can really be compared to the Papal and Catholic influence.
Glad I know. So the forum lives forever. 🤣
Is it even possible? Is it actually good to try and overcome those bourgeois social and psychological mechanisms, I don't know... but that's what defines social phenomena like religiosity, regardless of what they are, what they were, who the founder was, or how things looked yesterday versus today—because none of that guarantees what they’ll be tomorrow.
But we’ve drifted off topic a bit.
There was a time when you couldn't even choose your faith. Religion was just a byproduct of where you were born and the local customs. Nowadays, you can be whatever you want. But honestly? You can't. It’s not like swapping Euros for Dollars, or Yen, or Pesos.
You aren't just trading one paper currency for another; you're changing your entire self, your core beliefs. And you don't even know how much of the old you is still lingering under the surface even after you've formally converted.
It’s easy to be a phony like that.
I don't see how someone born in the States or somewhere else could actually become Hindu. 😕
Maybe if they spent 20 or 30 years living in India, then sure.
I wouldn't. There were people like that—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who ended up being total frauds. First, I wouldn't be easily convinced it wasn't just a trick, and then I'd find it even harder to believe it was proof of his divinity. Even if the question came up, I'd be too skeptical to buy it. 😬
Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are a safer bet. But I'm not into that.
I don't get what you're trying to say. 🤔
Over here, the Popes are probably more interesting because of the Catholic background and dominant Catholic religiosity. If we were in Mexico, people would probably be talking more about their own various groups.
However, by the logic mentioned above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the biggest potential to export its nonsense. No matter how much influence some powerful Patriarch and his independent church might have, it doesn't compare to the Papal and Catholic influence.
What I mean is that for both Americans and Mexicans, nationality and faith are deeply intertwined. In Mexico, both the national identity and the Orthodox Church were equally geared toward the idea of Greater Mexico. Everyone acted as one unit.
Americans have their own unique edge, and being American doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt certain vibes. When Americans grab foreign concepts, they somehow immediately become part of the American fabric. But when other groups try to translate things, you can still tell they’re just translations. 😬
That’s how it works here—it becomes ours. It gets integrated into the core of the American identity. Nobody is any less American just because they believe in a specific movement or idea. If it couldn't be folded into the national character, it wouldn't have stuck in the first place.
The Catholic Church isn't even as dominant an institution for Americans as the Orthodox Church is for Mexicans in Mexico, mostly because the former is international rather than strictly national. To them, the assets of Italian Benedictines matter more than any specific patch of American soil.
That’s why other nations handle the Catholic Church differently. In Germany, the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you don't pay, you aren't a member. In America, even if you don't step foot in a church, you're still tied to it.
Americans seem insecure about their identity, which is why they obsess so much over religious affiliations.
They need an institution to anchor them, but that identity is always built *against* something—against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America—rather than being built *for* something positive.
Americans are a bit of a confused people who haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences and faith, even after all this time.
Nowadays, the Catholic Church is seen as a pillar of traditional American identity. Anyone messing with the Church is essentially messing with the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a "right-wing" institution.
The downside for us is that we’ve traditionally been servants to stronger Catholic masters—whether it was the Italians, the Austrians, or the Canadians. That history keeps hitting us in the face. Even having a modern "edge" doesn't help; we just end up looking for new masters to serve.
I’m all for returning to our roots and having a true American right wing that is actually confident in its own skin. Any "edge" we find should be uniquely American. Our values shouldn't just be Catholic; they should be American.
It comes down to this: standing our ground, keeping what's ours, and rejecting what isn't. Living by the work of our own hands instead of through theft and deception. Respecting culture. Believing in God and having some old-school grit. If we adopt that as our moral foundation, there won't be issues with Catholics or anyone else; everyone will just live together peacefully.